Standing Up For Science
NAS and NAM Presidents Alarmed By Political Interference in Science Amid Pandemic
“As advisers to the nation on all matters of science, medicine, and public health, we are compelled to underscore the value of science-based decision-making at all levels of government. Our nation is at a critical time in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic with important decisions ahead of us, especially concerning the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Policymaking must be informed by the best available evidence without it being distorted, concealed, or otherwise deliberately miscommunicated. We find ongoing reports and incidents of the politicization of science, particularly the overriding of evidence and advice from public health officials and derision of government scientists, to be alarming. It undermines the credibility of public health agencies and the public’s confidence in them when we need it most. Ending the pandemic will require decision-making that is not only based on science but also sufficiently transparent to ensure public trust in, and adherence to, sound public-health instructions. Any efforts to discredit the best science and scientists threaten the health and welfare of us all.
Marcia McNutt
President, National Academy of Sciences
Victor J. Dzau
President, National Academy of Medicine”
Perhaps the biggest threat facing the United States is a growing minority of people believe science to be irrelevant and /or false.
Including some of our leaders.
Science interferes with the fantasy story they want to tell.
The very sad part of this is that the corrupting influence of politics on science has been going on for two generations and is very serious. And the root of it is in that phrase “science-based decision making”.
One of the core values of science is that it is based on experimental confirmation. Theory can only take one so far. “We don’t know” is something one ought to hear a lot, in a new situation, from a proper scientist.
“Scientific Advisors” learn not to say that. A decision needs to be made (or, at least, there is political pressure that a decision be made, that in the situation du jour, Something Must Be Done). We don’t know the answer. So we make our best guess. Humans have been doing that as long as they’ve had political units. But it isn’t science, and it teaches habits of thought that are incompatible with science. We didn’t know before the decision was made. We don’t know after the decision is made. The process of making the decision didn’t add one more bit of data, not did it provide a falsifiable theory. But now, Top Men have Spoken. There is a position to be defended. Reputations are on the line. Contrary data will be suppressed. Confirmation bias is in full play. Funding will be directed to support the decision already taken. Studies that might tend to contradict the decision will not be funded. The process of actually finding the right answer might be pushed out for decades (see the history of the Food Pyramid).
The marriage of science and political decision-making is nothing to celebrate. It has hurt the enterprise of science, and political decisions involve balancing many kinds of risks and costs and the interests of many stakeholders — and scientists have, as a rule, no special insight in to economic impact or the unintended consequences of a near-term policy choice than any others. Are there issues where we *do* have solid, experimentally validated theories? Sure there are. Should scientific advice have a seat at the table on those decisions? Sure it should. But that isn’t the bulk of the issues where we hear “Science Says”.
Learn to say “we dont’ know” again, when we don’t. It’s the scientific thing to do.
Exactly. And saying “we don’t know” is the beginning of understanding. But when we’ve burnt our hand on the stove we may wonder how we did that but we know it hurts. That should guide us along our path toward understanding 😉
Science is only either a tool or a toy.
G.K. Chesterton
Let us not lose sight of this essential reality.
However the pandemic shutdown is obviously a political decision. It must be based in science, and yet still it affects people’s lives and economics, and it is a questionable legal decision. Therefore it is not a 100% pure scientific decision to shut down a country. Based purely on science and statistics, we all should stay home for the rest of our lives. Statistically it is unsafe to walk, drive, eat, fly, or do anything. Living our lives is not based on scientific decisions, it is based on our humanity and our social codes.
Guess what: this virus could care less about your politics or mine or our economics. It is a molecular robot that spreads from one human body to another and uses our bodies as factories to make copies of itself. it does not care because it cannot care. It is a machine. We know this because of science. We can listen to what science tells us or, as this Administration has done, ignore it for political reasons and suffer the consequences.